How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Maxperson]

Nothing stops players tracking that stuff.

That isn't what I said. They can track the stars through the night sky if they want. It's simply not part of the role of player to track that stuff. It IS part of the DM's role. The numbers in the module are there for the DM, not the players. The DM can still share them if he wants, but the players are not why they are included.

In any event, my point remains: if description made numbers redundant, modules wouldn't need numbers.

And your point is simply false. The DM isn't using description the same way players do. Nor he is using the numbers the same way players do. The numbers exists for a different purpose for the DM and description does not work for the DM's purpose. Description DOES work for the players' purpose, which is to be informed such that they can make an informed decision on how they want their PC to act.

 

[Reynard]

That isn't what I said. They can track the stars through the night sky if they want. It's simply not part of the role of player to track that stuff. It IS the DM's role. The numbers in the module are there for the DM, not the players. The DM can still share them if he wants, but the players are not why they are included.

And your point is simply false. The DM isn't using description the same way players do. Nor he is using the numbers the same way players do. The numbers exists for a different purpose for the DM and description does not work for the DM's purpose. Description DOES work for the players' purpose, which is to be informed such that they can make an informed decision on how they want their PC to act.

I think it is obvious on its face that giving the players hard numbers from the statblock is more useful in a technical sense. If after a couple rounds of fighting you know that the monster only has 4 hp left, you are not going to smite, just as an easy example.

However, I think that is the least fun option available to the players and GM. there are lots of possible options between "hand them the statblock" and "tell them nothing" but all of them are better than handing them the statblock, IMO. (Note again that I am talking about what is fun, not what provides the most agency or the most tactical information.)

 

[Lanefan]

5e D&D has a number of such abilities - the Shield spell is one of them; the battle master's Precision Strike is another.

Again, however, were it me I would have it that the caster of Shield would have to commit to using it before the to-hit die is rolled. Once the die result is known it's too late to modify that roll, or to react with knowledge of that result.

That said, does Shield modify the actual roll, however, or modify the target's AC?

Not familiar with Precision Strike.

So when you say "nothing should be allowed to do this thing that is pretty standard in 5e", what do you take the normative force of your pronouncement to be? Aren't you the person who's always telling us that D&D is the lingua franca and the starting point.

D&D isn't perfect and never has been. The introduction of meta-mechanics like these in newer editions has IMO pushed it fairly hard in the direction away from perfection.

 

[Lanefan]

An interesting consequence of this that you don't see discussed much is the permanence and broader impact of the failed roll.
"Roll Arcana to see if you recognize the sigils."
If the player rolls and fails, we have established something new in the fiction: the PC does not recognize sigils of this sort. Does that mean that from then onward, that PC is not even allowed a roll when coming across sigils of the same sort (for arguments sake, let's say they are protection runes). What does that say about the PC's training and/or expertise? Were they never taught protection runes? Does that limit the available spells they can learn?

Well, it's always possible they'll learn about the runes in front of them through trial and error, which would inform their knowledge of any similar runes encountered later.

Failing that, then the lack of knowledge is binding until-unless the character takes proactive steps to fix it by doing research, training, or similar. Put another way: if you don't know something today, unless you learn about it in the meantime you'll not know it tomorrow either.

 

[Lanefan]

Anyone remember the days of old where if you failed certain checks (like opening a lock), you couldn't try again until you leveled up (or in the case of learning spells, raised your Intelligence)?

Yep. I still run it that way.

I always wondered what it was like being a locksmith in a world like that. "Well, I tried to unlock your door, so I guess there's no choice but to break the window."

And that's fairly realistic. If the locksmith can't unlock your door (which happens now and then, they're not perfect) then you have to find another way in be it by going through a window, or unscrewing and removing the doorknob/lock mechanism, or whatever.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it is obvious on its face that giving the players hard numbers from the statblock is more useful in a technical sense. If after a couple rounds of fighting you know that the monster only has 4 hp left, you are not going to smite, just as an easy example.

However, I think that is the least fun option available to the players and GM. there are lots of possible options between "hand them the statblock" and "tell them nothing" but all of them are better than handing them the statblock, IMO. (Note again that I am talking about what is fun, not what provides the most agency or the most tactical information.)

Yes, handing out the numbers gives more information. My argument is that the increase is minimally effective. You will occasionally skip a smite or the like. The description gives far more information and far more useful information.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have no idea.

But I was imagining that this person - the PC to whose player certain information is being conveyed by the GM - does recognise the circle for what it is.

Any particular reason they would recognize it? Is it part of their training? Or their backstory?

 

[Reynard]

Yes, handing out the numbers gives more information. My argument is that the increase is minimally effective. You will occasionally skip a smite or the like. The description gives far more information and far more useful information.

I guess that depends on the description? I can't think a qualitative phrasing that would be more and better information than a quantitative one, from a gameplay mechanics standpoint.

 

[Maxperson]

And that's fairly realistic. If the locksmith can't unlock your door (which happens now and then, they're not perfect) then you have to find another way in be it by going through a window, or unscrewing and removing the doorknob/lock mechanism, or whatever.

Nope. I've already given an example of same lock, same door, same credit card, and same person(me) failing to open it sometimes and succeeding other times. And those failures were after multiple attempts sometimes, and so were some of the successes were I failed a number of times before I succeeded.

Since I wasn't being level drained, clearly waiting for a level up isn't very realistic. As I said, I'm probably just going to allow a number of attempts equal to int or dex(leaning int) bonus in any given day. That's more realistic than what you do.

 

[Cadence]

I wonder if the split here has anything to do with the division between those who think HP totals in D&D impact the world in only a binary sense (something is either fully capable and above 0hp, or dying at 0hp or less) and those who think the effects of HP loss are visible to the world inhabitants (wounds, exhausted appearance, etc...) but the effects on die rolls and the like only have two levels for ease of game play. It feels like the description of how injured something was would necessarily be useless if you literally thought there was no visible effect until they hit 0.